Erik Zachte wrote:
Anthere:
My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself a break as well, before you decide no one is interested. We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady than hastily and without results.
Erik Zachte
My own point is that we may have days, but we may not have weeks. I know who is on the board now, I do not know for sure who will be on the board in a few months. By the way, about a good dozen people indicated their interest to be on the board, and some of them gave their opinion on the current topic. Others did not.
I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
Ultimately, either we together will have to decide which persons should be elected (in case of elections) or I (and other board members) will have to decide which persons to appoint (in case of appointments).
During last elections, some people complained that there has not been much "deep" discussions. To my opinion, membership and organisation are really important topics. There is a pending resolution which aims at appointing a temporary board member. This board member will have a voice, just as current board members have. This person will be able to impact greatly the future of the organisation depending on his/her position. I gather I was elected with the expectation I will make informed decisions with regards to the future of the organisation. I do not consider myself informed enough. No decisions is required. But opinions are necessary.
ant